Letters

The observations about the shifting nature of the intermarriage discourse expressed in the editorial, "A Welcoming Weekend" (Nov. 12), are, as the British would say, "spot on." Recent years have seen not so much a mellowing of positions on all sides, but the welcome evolution of more complex policy analyses and recommendations.

Speaking for myself, I continue to see intermarriage as potentially very injurious to both personal and group Jewish continuity. No evidence has yet emerged of a palpable increase in the distressingly small number of adult child-ren of mixed marriages who identify as Jews (about 25 percent, when 50 percent would be needed for population stability).

With so many Jews marrying non-Jews (as do about half), we clearly need policies that will engage mixed married families -- and their children, especially -- in vibrant Jewish life, even as we need policies that raise the chances that Jews will marry Jews.

With the exception of Sunday schools, most types of both formal and informal Jewish education (camps, Israel trips, day schools, Jewish pre-schools) exert lasting effects on the chances of Jews marrying Jews. In all likelihood, so, too, do programs and events that bring young adult Jews into Jewishly meaningful relationships with one another (independent minyanim, social justice engagement, cultural events, learning, new media).

The shifting discourse on intermarriage and the full expanse of research on the impact of Jewish education and young adult activities can be found at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive at NYU Wagner (www.BJPA.org).

Prof. Steven M. Cohen
New York, N.Y.

Paper's Editorial Raised All the Right Questions

Your editorial, "A Welcoming Weekend" (Nov. 12), raised the right questions for our Jewish community to answer. The article should stimulate discussion about creating a more defined and expanded outreach program to both the intermarried and the unaffiliated.

Thank you for helping InterFaithways raise sensitivity and awareness to this very important issue. The combination of your editorial and Rabbi Mayer Selekman's comments should make our Jewish community think and act on this important issue.

We need all the Jews we can get!

Leonard Wasserman
InterFaithways chairman
Bala Cynwyd

Just What a Pro-Israel Group Should Espouse

A pro-Israel organization on campus such as Hillel is absolutely correct in its mission of being "unabashedly supportive of Israel" and drawing lines on the kinds of speakers and programs to host (Cover Story: "Dueling Voices Duke It Out on Campus," Nov. 12).

But lest there be some mistake as to what "pro-Israel" means, here are a few simple guidelines: a) Believing that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, who are entitled to self-determination in their national homeland; b) respecting the vibrant Israeli democracy and its courts ; c) respecting Israeli military judgments and those who are responsible for protecting its citizens, and not being an armchair general; d) not joining forces with Israel's enemies; e) emphasizing the good in Israel while acknowledging its faults; e) supporting Israeli government efforts to make peace; f) understanding what Israel's enemies say, advocate and do (i.e, that Fatah and Hamas have charters calling for the destruction of Israel); g) being pro-peace, but not to the point that advocating for Israeli concessions damages Israel's existence.

Unfortunately, it is clear that too many of our young people on campus are ill-equipped to even enter into an intelligent discussion on the Middle East conflicts, let alone defend Israel from its vast and vociferous critics.

Lee Bender
Ardmore